Multiple Opportunities FAQ

Why do we allow redos and retakes in am evidence-based grading system?

First, we no longer refer to "redos" and "retakes."  This implies that it's simply a matter of a student figuring s/he can skip studying for the first test or assessment and can simply retake it the next time around.  Skirting the system in this manner serves no one well.  Instead, we have moved to "multiple opportunities to demonstrate proficiency."  

Teacher course groups determine the parameters for which a student will be provided another opportunity to demonstrate proficiency. This may look different in each course.

Why do we allow multiple opportunities for assessment in a standards-referenced system?

Schools that acquiesce to the factory model of schooling perpetuate an ineffective, age-based curriculum.  When learning doesn't happen on schedule, these schools tend to blame students or circumstances.  Teachers do need schematics for moving students through the established curriculum. But as we apply sound pedagogy and respond to real students' individual needs, blind adherence to pacing mandates makes little sense.  The goal is that all students learn the content, not just the ones who can learn on the uniform time line. Curriculum goals don't require that every individual reaches the same level of proficiency on the same day, only that every student achieves the goal.

Teachers need multiple pieces of evidence to be confident students have a good grasp of the learning targets before deciding on a final topic score.  To make standards-referenced grading work, the idea of "multiple opportunities" is emphasized.  Students actively engage in a first cycle of learning and then, if genuinely needing still more opportunities to demonstrate understanding of a certain learning target, concept, or skill, the student and teacher can work to allow the student to demonstrate further understanding. 

How does this practice prepare students for the 'real world'?  There are no retakes in the 'real world'.

It's only sensible to expect different things of students during the learning process than we expect of them when it's time to demonstrate final proficiency. Applying expectations for a high level of competency to students who are in the process of coming to know content is counterproductive, even harmful.

Those who claim to be preparing students for the working world by disallowing all redos forgets that adult professionals actually flourish through multiple opportunities to demonstrate understanding. Surgeons practice on cadavers before doing surgeries on live patients. Architects redesign building plans until they meet all the specifications listed or industry standards. Pilots rehearse landings and take-offs hundreds of times in simulators and in solo flights before flying with real passengers. Lawyers practice debate and analysis of arguments before litigating real cases. Teachers become much more competent and effective by teaching the same content multiple times, reflecting on what worked and what didn't work each time.  Students benefit from being given multiple situations in which they can show their learning of learning goals and targets, over time.

LSAT. MCAT. Praxis. SAT. Bar exam. CPA exam. Driver's licensure. Pilot's licensure. Auto mechanic certification exam. Every one of these assessments reflects the adult-level, working-world responsibilities our students will one day face. Many of them are high stakes: People's lives depend on these tests' validity as accurate measures of individual competence. People can reassess over and over for full credit.  It is 'real world' to encourage students to actively engage in learning in many ways, over time.